Standing Committee E

[Mr. Joe Benton in the Chair]

Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill [Lords]

Clause 31 - Disclosure of information

Amendment moved [this day]: No. 53, in clause 31, page 18, line 17, at end insert— 
'(e) a Member of Parliament for the constituency in which the victim, witness or other person affected by the offences is resident'.—[Mr. Heath.]

Joe Benton: I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing amendment No. 23, in
clause 31, page 18, line 28, leave out subsection (7) and insert— 
 '(7) Nothing in this section authorises the making of a disclosure which contravenes the Data Protection Act 1998 (c.29). 
 (7A) Notwithstanding subsection (7), any disclosure or processing of information under subsection (1) for the purposes set out in subsection (2) in performance of functions referred to in section 13 shall be deemed to be necessary to be processed for the exercise of any such functions for the purposes of the Data Protection Act 1998, in particular Section 35 (disclosures required by law or made in connection with legal proceedings etc) and schedules 1 (data protection principles), 2 (conditions relevant for the purposes of the first principle: Processing of any personal data) and 3 (conditions relevant for the purposes of the first principle: Processing of sensitive personal data) of that Act'.

David Heath: Welcome to the Committee this afternoon, Mr. Benton. When we broke off this morning, I was about to complete my comments on the amendment.
 I feel that the law should not introduce a barrier between a constituent and their Member of Parliament. Secondly, public policy issues often arise from cases. Given that cases of the kind in question can often take many years to resolve, by way of different hearings and proceedings, it cannot be right that the public policy issues that arise cannot be shared with Members of Parliament and, thereby, the House. 
 I hope that the Minister can reassure us that the Government are dealing with those issues and will present sensible proposals for dealing with them in due course.

Cheryl Gillan: Welcome to the Committee, Mr. Benton.
 I have great sympathy with the case that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) has made. Major issues have been raised recently about what a Member of Parliament can or cannot do about information brought to him or her by a constituent. I, too, look forward to the Minister's comments, because the amendment seems to be a perfect vehicle for a fuller exploration of the matter. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for tabling it. 
 I am also grateful to the hon. Gentleman for supporting amendment No. 23, to which I shall speak. 
 Victim Support particularly wants it to be considered, because it wants to ensure that all victims of crime obtain services for which they are eligible under the victims code. Victim Support is concerned to ensure clarity about the disclosure of information, and data protection in particular. 
 The debate is not a new one, because it was conducted in another place. However, Victim Support feels strongly about clause 31, and the amendment is intended to make it clear that nothing that a service provider does that complies with the victims code will put it in breach of the Data Protection Act 1998. 
 During the Grand Committee debate in the House of Lords, Baroness Scotland stated that she was confident that the current arrangements for passing information to Victim Support complied with the Data Protection Act 1998. That is a reassuring statement because it confirms, for example, that the police can pass on to Victim Support information about victims, who will then receive support. However, there have been misunderstandings in the past about the freedom to pass on such information, and I am sure that the Minister will understand why Victim Support hopes to have the correct situation put on the record in the House of Commons. 
 There is a justification for the amendment and a need for the Bill to reassure all service providers that compliance with the code will not put them in breach of the Data Protection Act 1998. The experience of Victim Support has shown that it is not sufficient for the practical implications of the Act to be tackled through protocols for information sharing and further guidance. Concerns are bound to remain in the minds of some data protection officers in view of the overriding requirements of the Act. 
 Amendment No. 23 is intended to assure the necessary flow of information to Victim Support to enable it to continue to provide services to victims. The Minister could easily accept the amendment, not least because there appears to be agreement across Government. I would have thought that the Government wanted to give assurances to organisations such as Victim Support by adding this small amendment to the Bill. I hope that the Minister will find favour with it and not reject it, as he has done with all other amendments bar one.

Paul Goggins: I reassure the hon. Lady that although I keep urging hon. Members not to press amendments, that does not mean that we are not listening to the points being made. I shall continue to do that.
 I understand why the hon. Lady has tabled amendment No. 23: to put it beyond doubt that compliance with the victims code of practice will not put individuals in breach of the Data Protection Act 1998. However, I am concerned that making an explicit link between that Act and the disclosure of information for this purpose, however important it appears to be, is likely to lead to further confusion. It could, for example, lead other public authorities to believe that such a provision is required of them before they have to make their own disclosures, rather than 
 relying on compliance with the general principles of the Data Protection Act. 
 The amendment is unnecessary and would cast doubt on the legality of existing arrangements and data sharing in other contexts.

Cheryl Gillan: Most police forces operate the agreed process for making referrals to Victim Support. Is the Minister satisfied that the relevant Home Office circular—44/2001, I think—is sufficient, or are there plans to amend it in the light of the Bill?

Paul Goggins: I was about to come to that very point. I am aware of the hon. Lady's and Victim Support's anxieties about the effect of data protection legislation on their work with victims. However, administrative protocols, which have been approved by the Information Commissioner, are in place for passing victims' personal details from the police to Victim Support. We are aware that there are sometimes breakdowns in the arrangements and that considerable efforts then have to be made by Victim Support to put matters rights. We acknowledge that the protocols are in need of review, and we intend to work with Victim Support, the police and the Information Commissioner to establish how guidance can be improved.
 Sir Michael Bichard's inquiry into data protection issues arising from the tragic events in Soham recommends the development of a new and separate code of practice to help drive up standards and supersede all existing guidance on data protection. The Government have accepted that recommendation, and it would provide an ideal vehicle to address Victim Support's concerns. I hope that that gives some reassurance to the hon. Lady. 
 Amendment No. 53 is designed to include Members of Parliament in the list of relevant authorities for disclosure of information. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome spent quite a chunk of his remarks discussing the Mumby judgment and related issues. We recognise and understand the difficulties that that judgment raised for MPs and how they help constituents involved in family proceedings. The disclosure of information in family proceedings is an issue not only for Members of Parliament, but for the police, the Crown Prosecution Service and other professional agencies. During the passage of the Children Bill in the other place, my hon. Friend Baroness Ashton agreed to consider those matters further and return to Members during this House's consideration of that Bill. I reassure the hon. Gentleman that, far from being complacent and inactive, we are considering such issues very carefully, although we will not address them in this Bill; we will do it in the Children Bill. 
 We must remember that the purpose of the clause is to facilitate compliance with the victims code, not investigations into its breach. The Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 provides the legislative framework for dealing with complaints, and as that legislation does not give MPs the power to get information, there is no reason why we should 
 introduce that power. Similarly, should colleagues wish to bring to the attention of the commissioner for victims and witnesses the wider issues raised by a particular case—and, of course, for the commissioner to provide a response—we do not need to legislate for that to happen. Members will be able to communicate with the commissioner in the same way they do now with other public authorities. 
 I hope that I have addressed hon. Members concerns.

David Heath: I am grateful to the Minister for his response. I did not suggest that he was being complacent or inaccurate. I merely wanted to know what progress had been made. I have now heard from him that there will be amendments to the Children Bill. I assume that that will happen within a reasonably short time, because I think that the Children Bill is about to return to this House, although I have forgotten the exact sequence of events.
 I would be grateful if someone in the Minister's Department or the Department for Education and Skills wrote to give an outline of what will be proposed—perhaps not the precise amendments, but their scope. There is a great deal of disquiet about this matter, not among Members because the impact is not on us, but on the people who come to see us; it is they who are in contempt of court. It is serious for our constituents that they may inadvertently find themselves on the wrong side of the law by doing something that they believe to be their right, which is to consult their MP about an issue of great importance to them. One hopes that the change will be sufficiently comprehensive to deal with the range of issues that may emerge; once that is the case, people will feel much easier. 
 I understand the Minister's point on amendment No. 23. I hope that his words will reassure the sponsors of the amendment, but I suspect that they will still have concerns about the impact of the proposals.

Cheryl Gillan: I agree entirely. Despite the Minister's assurances about the review process, one problem to do with victim support is that data protection officers and chief constables fear that passing referral information could bring about personal liability. When those fears exist, the number of referrals goes down dramatically. It has been estimated that a quarter of the country is adversely affected as individuals move around. There is a serious need for the Minister to take those fears into account.

David Heath: That is right. If we want an illustration of the extraordinary views that are held about the application of the Data Protection Act 1998, we have only to think of the Soham situation and the Bichard inquiry to see that the legislation can be wildly misinterpreted by people who ought to know better.
 There is a need for guidance, and it needs to be explicit. Without that guidance, if people can get the wrong end of the stick, they will. They do so for defensive reasons, because they do not want to be prosecuted and find themselves at the wrong end of proceedings having to defend their actions, or having to pay to defend them if they are a public body. We 
 must have clarity. I shall study carefully what the Minister said, but we will probably need further explicit guidance before everyone is reassured. 
 Having said that, I look forward to reading the amendments to the other legislation. I should be grateful if the Minister can say whether he will write to me.

Paul Goggins: Another Department has the lead on the issue, but I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the attention of my noble Friend, Baroness Ashton of Upholland. I am sure that appropriate communication will happen at the earliest opportunity.

David Heath: I am most grateful. The interest shown in the matter by the Leader of the House, the Standards and Privileges Committee and the Speaker of the House was clear at business questions a few weeks ago. There is a general feeling that something needs to be done in the short term to correct the current position. Given the hon. Gentleman's assurances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 31, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clause 32 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 33 - Grants for assisting victims, witnesses etc

Vera Baird: I beg to move amendment No. 88, in clause 33, page 19, line 30, at end add—
'(3) The Secretary of State may make grants to voluntary organisations under this section for the purpose of providing appropriate protection and support services for children who have suffered impairment due to seeing or hearing ill-treatment of another person. Any payments will be subject to such conditions as he considers appropriate.'.
 Although I tabled the amendment, I should have preferred to defer to my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) because it falls within his area of interest concerning children. He is not present, however, so I shall press on. 
 This amendment, which I discussed with my hon. Friend and others, is advocated by Women's Aid and a large number of organisations, including Refuge, which are concerned about the impact on children of having seen or heard the ill treatment of another person, usually in the context of domestic violence.

David Heath: I have sympathy with the intention behind the hon. and learned Lady's amendment. My noble Friends tabled such an amendment in another place and spoke to it. Does she agree, however, that although it is important for us to have this debate and receive the assurances that I hope the Minister will give us, the power is already contained in the clause, without amendment, to provide the sort of assistance that we want?

Vera Baird: It appears to be possible that grants could be paid to people under clause 33(1)
''in connection with measures which appear . . . to be intended to assist victims, witnesses or other persons'',
 but I am not sure about that. I ask the Minister to make clear what he envisages that wording allowing. At the moment, the situation is not a happy one. 
 The amendment presents a clear understanding, which the Government also have, of the potential damage to children from domestic violence. The Government recently made it clear that three quarters of children on the at-risk register live in households in which domestic violence occurs. The Department of Health acknowledges that domestic violence is a major indicator of risk to children and that perpetrators who are violent to their partners are frequently violent to their children. 
 There is an understanding that goes beyond the danger of physical injury to a child, as well as a parent, which is that a child will suffer from the trauma and shock of being exposed to violence inflicted by one party—usually one carer—on another. The amendment is intended to ensure that the use of the word ''victims'' in the clause is wide enough to permit the Secretary of State to give grants to children who have not physically been injured but who have witnessed very unpleasant things. 
 A recent book, ''Children's Perspectives on Domestic Violence'', written partly by Professor Liz Kelly of London Metropolitan university, consists in part of children who lived with domestic violence saying what they needed and what they suffered in that situation. Their replies were described as being astonishingly clear and consistent. The most commonly cited need was, not surprisingly, safety, but the next most common was someone to talk to. In the book, a nine-year-old girl speaking from her own experience said that people 
''need someone to talk to. Because, if they were like me, sometimes I'm really sad and I need someone to talk to''.
 She said that people may not be able to 
''speak to the mum because maybe their mum don't want to talk about it. I think they should have someone to talk to.''
 Clearly, that is not a desire for a chat; it is a profound need for a proper channel of communication with someone responsible, so that children who suffer exposure to violent behaviour can talk about the stresses that they suffer, their incomprehension and the impact that the behaviour has had on their development. 
 Children in the study also stated that the support services that they valued most in their sad youthful experience of domestic violence were those provided by children's support workers in refuges. Refuge organisations in England provide accommodation for about 23,500 children a year, and support services for about 110,000 children a year. They try to offer a wide range of services, including play, outings, and one-to-one support of the kind that I mentioned, involving advocacy and after care. Such organisations are the only widespread, dedicated source of support for children who have experienced domestic violence. However, children's support services in refuges are not mentioned in ''Every Child Matters''. 
 There is always the law of unintended consequences, and Women's Aid has made it clear that recent Government initiatives—unintentionally, I am sure—are effectively reducing support services for children in that category. Women's Aid relates that children's services in refuges are starved of funds, because the funding comes through the ''supporting people'' programme, and its funding regime is not aimed at children. However, children make up two thirds of the refuge population. 
 National standards for day care for under-eights have set staffing ratio and minimum space standards that only some 40 per cent. of refuges can ever afford to meet. Some refuge organisations have had to cut back drastically on the services that they offer. Women's Aid is carrying out a survey to find out in detail how refuge organisations are responding to the national standards, but it seems as though only 25 per cent. of organisations will be able to comply with national standards. 
 Women's Aid points out that children who have been involved in proceedings relating to violent parents need to be assessed properly. In May 2003, Women's Aid carried out a survey of 170 refuge organisations and domestic violence services. Some 83 per cent. of those services, which are at the cutting edge of expertise in terms of children who suffer from domestic violence, say that the ability to assess children is currently limited, because assessments during proceedings tend to be one-off interviews with someone whom the child does not know. That means that the child does not have the opportunity to receive a service that is absolutely necessary even for adults: the opportunity to talk about the most intimate aspects of family life. We are talking about a relationship built on trust, and it is much harder to achieve that with children. 
 In the Women's Aid briefing, there are plenty of expressions of the fact that it is difficult for children to disclose material at one-off interviews. There is a strong suggestion in the material before us that, in private law proceedings, issues concerning children and arising from domestic violence and abuse are not being got at adequately. The amendment makes clear what the Secretary of State is prepared to do and how widely the clause can be interpreted. Children who experience domestic violence must have safety and support urgently.

Cheryl Gillan: Although the amendment is a probing one, I support it because it provides an opportunity to hear the Minister's views. There is a lacuna in looking after children. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre is not in Committee, because he has done much work on the subject.
 It is obvious that children do not have to be physically or verbally abused to be hurt by domestic violence. Even hearing, or seeing, the abuse of one parent by the other can take a huge toll on kids and make a lasting impression. Children can also be the direct target of domestic violence and be hurt intentionally by an abusive parent, get caught in the middle of a particularly violent domestic incident and 
 be hurt accidentally or, in some cases, even be killed. I remind the Under-Secretary that I have some outstanding written questions on the statistics concerning the deaths of children, to which I have not yet received a response. Whether those statistics exist is another matter, but I hope that an answer is forthcoming. 
 As a result of domestic violence, children can develop a physical or mental problem that could last a lifetime. They can grow up believing that violence is a normal part of family life and be more likely to be abusive as adults if they are males, and more passive and withdrawn if they are females. The children often live in daily fear of what to expect at home. Their lives can be filled with confusion, chaos, anger and tension, which can lead to a lifelong fear and inability to trust others. 
 The children can be isolated by an abusive parent who shuts off the family from outside help or support. They can feel responsible themselves for such abuse because they feel that they are powerless to stop it. I have a constituency case in which that is exactly what is happening. Not to put too fine a point on it, I am having difficulty in finding the correct route down which help can be provided to the child. At present, my constituent is dealing with a real and living problem. I do not want to breach any confidences in respect of the case, but at some stage this afternoon I may take the mind of the Minister, because I have to deal with the case before the end of the day. 
 Young children can become very anxious. Many complain of tummy aches, wet the bed or find difficulty in sleeping. They have temper tantrums, and they start to behave as if they have mental health problems themselves. Boys seem to express their distress outwardly, while girls are more likely to internalise their stress. When I was researching the problem, I came across a helpful list that had been published by an American organisation called Turning Point. It listed the symptoms for which people in contact with such children should keep a weather eye. It includes unusual or unexplained injuries, headaches, stomach aches, signs of neglect, withdrawal such as playing alone and having no friends, depression, low self-esteem, use of violence to solve conflicts, trouble falling or staying asleep, sleeping during school, flashbacks, difficulty expressing emotions, school problems including lengthy absences, and acting over-responsibly—as if the child is the adult of the family and takes control. 
 The ongoing effects are alarming. I have looked at research showing that boys who have witnessed the abuse of their mothers are 10 times more likely as adults to abuse their female partners. Children who are abused in homes with domestic violence are 1,500 per cent. more likely to be neglected than other children. In homes where fathers assault mothers, the daughters are 651 per cent. more likely to be sexually abused than girls in non-abusive homes. Children of abused mothers are six times more likely to abuse drugs or alcohol, and are at a higher risk of running away. 
 A 1992 United States study showed that 63 per cent. of imprisoned kids between the ages of 11 and 20—I appreciate that these were American kids—were doing time for killing their mother's abuser. By reflecting on those statistics from Turning Point, I put on record the fact that this problem will cost society and the taxpayer a lot of money in the long term unless it is dealt with in its initial stages, when it first comes to the attention of the relevant agencies. 
 That is why I support this probing amendment and want to hear what the Minister has to say about it. Our children are our future. We have to protect them and minimise the damage done to them when they live in or around an abusive domestic relationship.

Julie Morgan: The case for the needs of children who are in households where domestic violence occurs has already been made, and I do not have to go into the issue again. However, there is a gap in provision, and refuges in Wales are certainly short of play workers and support workers.
 Let me cite the example of a woman living in my constituency who depended on the support provided for her children. She was living in temporary accommodation and was traumatised by her experience of domestic violence and racism. Her mental health was in such a bad state that she was unable to leave the accommodation. She was totally dependent on support workers from BAWSO, the black women's refuge, to take her child to school, take him swimming, buy him things and enable him to have any semblance of a normal life. I am talking about addressing the physical needs of the child, as opposed to the mental needs that have been mentioned. That case strongly brought home to me the situation of such children, who may have been traumatised by witnessing domestic violence or even being caught up in it. 
 It is essential that there should be help at a very early stage. There is a big gap in provision, and we have to concentrate resources in that area, otherwise the problems that begin at an early age will be worse when they come to be addressed later.

David Heath: A powerful case has been made in support of the intention behind the amendment. I do not want to detract from that case; indeed, I support it wholeheartedly. The amendment was tabled by my noble Friend Baroness Thomas of Walliswood in another place for what was, I am afraid, a brief debate whose timing was not perfect; only she and Baroness Scotland of Asthal participated.
 However, two things emerged. First, it is my conviction that there is a gap in provision that needs to be filled. Secondly, the amendment is not, strictly speaking, necessary to enable the Government to fill that gap, because the permissive power is already set out in clause 33. I did not seek to pursue the amendment, because I thought that we could do the job as well with a stand part debate. Nevertheless, we have had the debate on the amendment. The Minister now needs to repeat, as I am sure he will, the Home Office view that the clause already provides the necessary power, but he should go a lot further. He should say that he recognises the issue and the fact that 
 we do not deal well with the children of those in abusive relationships, and acknowledge that we need to provide support in that area. 
 The Minister should also flesh out the comments made by Baroness Scotland in another place. She suggested that this is one of the matters that are under consideration for inclusion in the action plan that is being drawn up under the national strategy for victims and witnesses. I want the Minister to state explicitly that this matter will be included in that plan. We can then stop pursuing it, because we will be satisfied that he has heard the comments that have been made by the voluntary organisations from which the amendment came and by hon. Member on both sides of the Committee. 
 The Government need to address the matter and to provide support for the organisations that are trying to deal with the difficult issues associated with support for children. The Minister must say that that is a priority for the Government and that it will be contained in the plans that they propose to introduce. If he can give me that assurance, we will all be satisfied and feel that we have done our job in the Committee. If he is unable to do so, we will have to return to the matter until we get a satisfactory answer from the Government.

Robert Walter: I rise to support the amendment, because, unlike the hon. Gentleman, I think that it is right that it should be included in the Bill.
 Children are often the forgotten victims of domestic violence, and we would be doing them a disservice if we did not highlight that fact in the clause by introducing the amendment or something similar. My hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham referred to various statistics about the number of children involved. All statistics in this area seriously underestimate the effect on children of domestic violence in the home. 
 I do not have any statistics, but I would like to share some anecdotal evidence with the Committee, as it emphasises the point. Some Committee members will know that my wife has been very involved in highlighting the problem of domestic violence. Last year, she happened to be in the hairdressers and she was talking to a young girl who had just started work, aged 16, as an apprentice hairdresser. She was washing my wife's hair and they were talking about what my wife was doing. For a couple of minutes the girl related her experiences of domestic violence in the home. She said that that was the first time that she had felt able to tell anyone, although she was talking to a complete stranger. Nobody had ever asked her before. As a result, she wrote down her experiences. They were very moving and they have been made into a short film. 
 The only reason why I tell this anecdote to the Committee is that, during the production of that film, I was involved in a meeting with a member of the production crew—a man in his mid-thirties. He explained why he wanted to be involved and related a story about when he was five years old. His sister stabbed his father with a butter knife, because he was 
 attacking the man's mother. He also said that nobody had asked him what effect it had had on him. 
 In both those instances, as one dug a little deeper, it seemed that the mothers just wanted to cover the situation up. They did not want to talk about it—certainly not with the children—and they did not want to encourage the children to be involved with any outside agencies. 
 Those are historic examples, but the Bill should include a provision that makes it incumbent on those responsible for considering the victims of domestic violence to dig deeply to find out how it affects children. As well as physical damage, the children often suffer enormous psychological damage.

Cheryl Gillan: Does my hon. Friend agree that, if a child requires treatment, it can often be an indication that the mother is suffering domestic violence? The woman will invariably seek medical help for her children rather than for herself. The fact that a child requires medical treatment can be extremely helpful in identifying domestic violence. It is therefore even more essential that resources are made available; the money can help build up a wider and broader picture.

Robert Walter: I agree entirely. It is important that we make resources available. Although we are talking primarily about helping the child—the innocent observer of physical abuse and domestic violence, and in many cases the victim—as far as the other agencies are concerned, the children add an extra perspective to the assessment of the crimes committed in their homes.

Ann Keen: I am not an expert, but at an international conference two or three years ago hosted by the Metropolitan police, I had the opportunity to chair an afternoon seminar. A delegate from Cyprus said that, in that country, if a child is in the home when the perpetrator is abusing someone, the perpetrator is also charged with child abuse. Could we consider making a similar provision?

Paul Goggins: I am grateful to all hon. Members who have contributed to the debate; their evidence and harrowing stories have moved us all. In passing, I can tell the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham that if I can assist with the case that she had in mind, I shall be happy to do so.
 We should remind ourselves that clause 33 is intended to give statutory authority for Government grants to be paid to voluntary sector bodies. That is entirely in line with Treasury best practice. We do not suggest in the clause what the level of funding might be, and neither do we say how the grant should be distributed between the various organisations. The Secretary of State may pay grants to any organisation that appears to him to assist victims, witnesses or others affected by such offences, and I confirm that children are definitely included in that definition. The amendment's mention of children is therefore unnecessary. 
 Hon. Members will appreciate the fact that funding for Victim Support has risen from £11.7 million in 
 1997 to some £30 million this year. The charity offered its community services to almost 80,000 victims of domestic violence in 2002–03, and it will have taken account of the needs of the children affected by the violence, referring them to other agencies when necessary. Similarly, its witness service offered support to about 30,000 children and young people who were victims or witnesses of crime. 
 My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) mentioned a book by Liz Kelly. I have not had the opportunity to read it, but I shall certainly take an urgent look at it. Like several hon. Members, I was invited to a presentation organised by Women's Aid in which children spoke from their personal perspective about some of those issues. My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre mentioned that event on Second Reading; it was a moving occasion. 
 The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham referred to parliamentary questions to which she awaits answers. I am considering the answers, and I will make sure that she receives them as soon as possible. There is no intention to block them.

Cheryl Gillan: What I said was less a criticism and more an inquiry, because it is probably quite difficult to come by the information that I asked for, which makes my point that we need more information and statistics.

Paul Goggins: I can confirm that we have some information, and the hon. Lady will have it as soon as we can make it available.
 For children who are not victims or witnesses of crime, the children, young people and families directorate of the Department for Education and Skills has the policy lead at national level. However, it is for local authorities to decide how best to provide support and services for children in need in their areas, including children in women's refuges. 
 It is important that the needs of such children are met. The Department for Education and Skills made it clear in its response to the ''Safety and Justice'' consultation paper that it will look at overhauling the support services available to children at risk as a result of domestic violence through the implementation of the proposals in the Green Paper ''Every Child Matters'', and it will consider how to address support needs specific to children who are affected by domestic violence. We are working with the Department for Education and Skills to decide how best to take that work forward and to support those children better in future. 
 The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome asked about the action plan for victims and witnesses, and I can confirm the comments made by my colleague in the other place about what is part of that action plan. I hope that that reassures him. 
 I hope that my other remarks give some reassurance to hon. Friends and Opposition Members. The cases they outlined are harrowing. The need is urgent, we are looking at the matter closely with the Department for Education and Skills, and we will ever seek to 
 improve the way in which we deliver support to children in need.

Lady Hermon: It is delightful to see you back in the Chair this afternoon, Mr. Benton.
 The Minister will recall that just before we adjourned for lunch there was a query about the definition of victims in terms of offences, and, in particular, antisocial behaviour. Clause 33 states that grants will be paid 
''to assist victims, witnesses or other persons affected by offences.''
 Children, as well as adults, are victims of antisocial behaviour. Can the Minister confirm that there will be a revision to take that into account?

Paul Goggins: I gave an undertaking this morning that we would look carefully at the definition of victims and witnesses in clause 29; we will also take on board the hon. Lady's comments. I hope that I have been able to reassure Committee members, and that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar will consider withdrawing the amendment.

Vera Baird: I am grateful to all contributors to the debate. In significantly different ways, they have made clear the sense that there is a gap in provision and that it is very important that children should be fully recognised as victims of domestic violence, even when they have not been physically injured, so that their needs can be adequately provided for.
 I am reassured by what my hon. Friend the Minister said. He is clearly letting the Committee understand that clause 33(1), which refers to assisting 
''victims, witnesses or other persons affected by offences'',
 is wide enough to cover children who have been victims but who may not have been injured by being punched, who may not be victims of an offence or have physically witnessed an offence, and yet who were on the premises or around the situation when it occurred. 
 I wanted an assurance that the Minister understands the needs of those children and that the clause is wide enough to ensure that the help that they need can be delivered after proper investigation through the appropriate channels. Because that has been made clear, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Lady Hermon: Clause 33 highlights the Government's higgledy-piggledy approach to the Bill's application to Northern Ireland. Curiously, this clause does extend to Northern Ireland. Although the Minister is perfectly content for the people of Northern Ireland to be left without a commissioner for victims and witnesses, he intends grants to be paid to victims and witnesses there who are affected by offences. I do not want him to withdraw the application of the clause to Northern Ireland, but I want to bring to his attention the curious fact that the Northern Ireland Office website states that the Government have to date committed more than
 £18.25 million in support of measures for victims of the troubles, including for the memorial fund.
 Will the Minister clarify what consultation took place between the Home Office and his ministerial colleagues at the Northern Ireland Office—in particular the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Basildon (Angela Smith), who has responsibility for victims in Northern Ireland—on the extension of clause 33 to Northern Ireland? Secondly, will he clarify whether those who have been victims of the troubles and who have rightly benefited from applications to the memorial fund will also be able to apply for a grant under the clause?

Vera Baird: I seek further clarification on the breadth of the clause. I was pleased to hear the assurances that the amendment evoked from the Minister, but I wonder whether the clause falls foul of the argument levelled against it in an earlier amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble). Before the Secretary of State has the ability under this power to pay a grant, it is required that the individuals, or the groups representing individuals, must be those that intend to assist victims, witnesses or other persons affected by offences. That clearly means criminal offences, which is usually what people who have been witnesses or victims have been involved in.
 In order for grants to be triggered, does there have to be a conviction so that offences are clearly entered on the record? Would a person who brought proceedings, and who had suffered to some extent from the consequences of another's actions, but who failed to bring home the full implications of a technical offence, be excluded from receiving support from the grant-aided funding set out in the clause? 
 Another problem is caused by couching the clause in terms of assisting victims of or witnesses to offences. Will victims of or witnesses to antisocial behaviour, which may not amount to a criminal offence, but which will be dealt with through civil proceedings in pursuit of an antisocial behaviour order, be covered? On the face of it, they will not, yet, as has been said, they are likely to have been just as traumatised and to be in need of just as much support as witnesses at criminal trials.

David Heath: The hon. and learned Lady is making an important point. I just question her interpretation. A lot of the groups that may be included in the definition will also deal prophylactically with issues associated with crime or domestic violence, and so on, and will seek to avoid an offence being committed. They may find it difficult to differentiate in their work between that which prevents an offence from being committed and what assists afterwards. I hope that the Government are not over-prescribing, and therefore over-defining, what such grants might be used for.

Vera Baird: I take the hon. Gentleman's point, and I should think that the Minister has done so, too. What he says is right. The key is couching the terminology widely enough to ensure that the Government help the people whom they want to help. They want to help people who are affected by
 antisocial behaviour and need support, just as much as they want to help people who have suffered from crime and need support. It is a way of ensuring that people who take civil proceedings, or are a party to suffering that goes to a civil court for a solution rather than to a criminal court, will be protected. I want to reiterate that distinction, because I am not sure that it was made powerfully enough, although I heard the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) raise it in connection with the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North.
 The problem with clause 29 is that it is about criminal matters, and the problem with clause 33 is that it is only about offences. Antisocial behaviour orders are not criminal proceedings, and what occurs prior to an antisocial behaviour order being imposed is not an offence.

Paul Goggins: I was remiss of me not to respond during the debate on the amendments to my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ann Keen). I will look carefully at her suggestion, because I am not able to give her a firm, clear answer now.
 On clause stand part, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar, as ever, makes a number of important points. In relation to the provision of services to victims, it is not necessary that there is a conviction. I hope that that offers her some reassurance. On her other point, we will, as I promised this morning, consider the whole Bill and the role of the commissioner, and so on, so that it is clear that their remit covers antisocial behaviour. 
 After our previous discussions, I can only say to the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) that I share her pleasure that the clause is extended to cover Northern Ireland. I reassure her that I have had close consultations, personally and organisationally, with colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office—in particular, the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon, to whom the hon. Lady referred. The clause legitimises current arrangements, and in that sense it does not introduce anything new. As the hon. Lady's suggested, the victims associated with the troubles would qualify under the clause. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 33 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 34 - Amendments and repeals

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

David Heath: I apologise to the Committee for delaying its proceedings for just a moment. This is a case of ''If not now, when?'' I have a passion for legislative tidiness.
 The clause deals with other Acts that are to be amended, repealed or revoked. Once the Government have had their way on schedule 7, there will be an amendment to, rather than a revocation or repeal of, 
 the Colonial Prisoners Removal Act 1884. We do not have a great number of colonial prisoners now—

Dominic Grieve: We have some.

David Heath: I am sure that they could be redefined so the 1884 Act is no longer necessary.

Dominic Grieve: I can think of one case from the Falkland Islands, which was interesting at the time it arose, although the prisoner may have been released by now. The Falkland Islands had no facilities to house him, and he had to be transferred to the United Kingdom.

David Heath: Obviously, there are still British overseas territories to be catered for, but I would like that to be done either under their own statute or under the more general statute. We keep some rather antiquated statutes around simply because of inertia—because no one can be bothered to rework them into something more current. That complicates the law. To the 1884 Act—which I suspect was designed for the colonies of Australia, New Zealand and Canada, our dominions at that time—on the statute book for the sake of the one person on the Falkland Islands seems nonsense. I wish that, when drafting legislation, we would try to consolidate where possible. To repeal an Act of doubtful utility and some antiquity and re-insert the provisions into another Act under a consequential amendment would be a better way to order our business than to require people to look through a great number of old statutes to find the one that applies. I leave that for the Minister's consideration.

Paul Goggins: I am sure that we all admire the hon. Gentleman's liking for legislative tidiness. However, the Colonial Prisoners Removal Act 1884 is still used, as the hon. Member for Beaconsfield said. It is old and has been amended on many occasions, but there are no current plans to consolidate.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 34 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 7 - Minor and consequential amendments

Amendment made: No. 106, in schedule 7, page 37, line 27, at end insert— 
'Colonial Prisoners Removal Act 1884 (c.31) 
 In section 10 of the Colonial Prisoners Removal Act 1884 (application of Act to removal of criminal lunatics), in subsection (3), in paragraph (a) for the words from ''give'' to the end substitute ''by warrant direct that he is to be detained in such hospital, within the meaning given by section 145(1) of the Mental Health Act 1983, as may be specified in the direction; and any such direction shall have the same effect as a hospital order under section 37 of that Act together with a restriction order under section 41 of that Act, made without limitation of time;''.'.—[Paul Goggins.]

Paul Goggins: I beg to move amendment No. 95, in schedule 7, page 38, line 32, at end insert—
'Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (c.53) 
 In section 1(3) of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (meaning of ''sentence'' for the purposes of that Act), after ''other than'' insert— 
 ''(za) a surcharge imposed under section 161A of the Criminal Justice Act 2003;''.'.

Joe Benton: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendments Nos. 96 to 100, 94 and 101.
 Government new clause 35—Surcharge payable on conviction. 
 Government new clause 36—Increase in maximum on-the-spot penalty for disorderly behaviour. 
 Government new clause 37—Higher fixed penalty for repeated road traffic offences.

Paul Goggins: I must ask for your forbearance, Mr. Benton, and that of the Committee as I go into the amendments.
 The amendments add a surcharge to criminal convictions in the courts, to fixed penalty notices for road traffic offences and to penalty notices for disorder. The proposal to add a surcharge to criminal convictions and fixed penalty notices was one a number of measures set out in the consultation paper ''Compensation and Support for Victims of Crime'', which was issued on 12 January. There was overwhelming support for more and better services for victims of crime, although opinion was divided on the introduction of the surcharge. The majority of objections were to the addition of the surcharge to fixed penalty notices for speeding. The amendments will add the surcharge only when a driver seriously or persistently speeds and/or seriously or persistently commits other endorsable motoring offences that attract fixed penalty notices.

Dominic Grieve: What does that actually mean?

Paul Goggins: In practice, it means that the surcharge will apply to anybody who currently has points on their licence or has been disqualified at any point in the previous three years.

Dominic Grieve: To be clear, if a driver gets speed-camera'd—if I can use that expression—as happens frequently in my constituency, he pays a £60 fine and gets three penalty points. If that is the first time that it has happened and there are no other points on his licence he will not be surcharged, but if it happens to him again he will be.

Paul Goggins: That is correct. If he has no points on his licence he will not be surcharged, and if he has points on his licence he will be.
 Our aim is to make offenders pay a small sum to a fund for the victims of crime. The fund will provide practical and emotional support to a range of victims. There is no provision for the establishment of the victims fund because we can do that without primary legislation by agreeing with the Treasury that a certain portion of the Consolidated Fund will be ring-fenced. A recent precedent for that is the recovered assets fund, into which were paid the proceeds of crime recovered through confiscation orders. 
 To assist the Committee, I will go through the proposed arrangements in some detail. I will speak first about the surcharge and criminal convictions. New section 161A of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 would impose a duty on the court to order payment of 
 the surcharge with a criminal conviction except when the court makes an absolute discharge or mental health disposal. However, a compensation order would take priority over the surcharge, and if the court considers that the offender should pay compensation and has insufficient means to pay the surcharge as well, it must reduce the surcharge accordingly—if necessary, to nil. The Secretary of State would have power to prescribe further exceptions. If the experience of operating the surcharge shows that certain categories of defendants are being unfairly penalised by it, we envisage using that power. 
 New section 161B deals with the amount of the surcharge, which it states will be specified by order of the Secretary of State. That will enable higher surcharges to be ordered for more serious offences. However, the intention is that the surcharge should be a relatively small amount: on our current figures, up to £30, so as to maximise payment by the vast majority of offenders to a wide range of victims. 
 Subsection (3) of new clause 35 would have the effect of ensuring that the surcharge will be treated as a fine for the purposes of collection and enforcement. Under subsection (4), the new provisions in the Courts Act 2003 on the collection and enforcement of fines would apply. Subsection (5) provides that the Secretary of State may amend the way in which the relevant provisions of that Act apply to the surcharge: the measures are being piloted and the evaluation of the pilots may necessitate changes. Section 97 of the 2003 Act provides a power to amend the provisions in light of the pilots, but that would not extend to the surcharge, which will not be part of the pilot. The order-making power simply makes sure that we can ensure that the Courts Act provisions in their final form apply properly to the surcharge. It would be subject to the affirmative procedure by virtue of amendment No. 94. Amendments Nos. 95 to 101 are consequential to new clause 35. 
 We also aim to add a small sum—£5 is proposed—to penalty notices for disorder. That would enable those who perpetrate such offences and wreak such havoc in our neighbourhoods to give something back to victims. The victims fund will support victims of antisocial behaviour and disorder. That can be done principally through secondary legislation. Section 3 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 allows the Secretary of State to increase the amount of penalty payable under a penalty notice for disorder and to amend the prescribed form for a penalty notice. Our intention is to use that existing power to increase the penalty payable and to include on the penalty notice a statement that part of the penalty will go into the victims fund. We can then make administrative arrangements for the amount representing the surcharge to go into the fund. 
 However, new clause 36 amends section 3 of the 2001 Act to increase the maximum penalty that may be prescribed; currently, it is one quarter of the maximum fine payable. The amendment will ensure that the amount of the penalty representing the surcharge is taken into account by providing that the maximum is one quarter of the maximum fine plus one half of the 
 surcharge payable. I stress that our proposals in the consultation paper would not require an increase in penalties for disorderly behaviour to the extent that the additional headroom would be needed. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the surcharge is taken into account in fixing the maximum penalty payable. 
 On higher fixed penalties for road traffic offences, again the aim is to add a small sum if a person has seriously and/or persistently committed endorsable offences punishable by fixed penalty notices. We have listened to the consultation responses and believe that that is the right way forward. The victims fund will provide support to the many victims of road traffic accidents. In exactly the same way as for penalty notices for disorder, most of that can be done by using the existing power to increase the amount of a penalty in section 53 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 and by making administrative arrangements for the amount representing the surcharge to go into the victims fund. Section 88 of that Act requires us to consult representative organisations before making any secondary legislation. 
 New clause 37 broadens the section 53 power to enable the surcharge to be added only for persistent offenders—those who already have points on their licence or have been disqualified from driving in the last three years. Without the provision we would not be able to differentiate persistent offenders and other offenders.

Dominic Grieve: There is an alternative, is there not? Fixed penalty offences could be entirely exempt from the surcharge scheme on the basis that if a person is photographed by a speed camera and the circumstances or speed are such that he is not dealt with by a fixed penalty, he can always be summonsed to court and fined more than the fixed penalty there. The fixed penalty system could therefore be taken out of the surcharge scheme quite simply and without difficulty.

Paul Goggins: That may be true, but the purpose of fixed penalty notices is to deal swiftly and fairly with people who break the law. That is our purpose and there is no reason why such people should escape the surcharge just because they have been subjected to a fixed penalty notice.
 Hon. Members may be aware that a review of penalty points for motoring offences is under way. We intend it to feed into the decisions that we make about the surcharge. If any primary legislation follows the review, we will consider whether we need to make further changes to reflect any new system. 
 New clause 37 also amends the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 so that we can make regulations dealing with the situation where a conditional offer has been made of a fixed penalty notice and the driver is subsequently identified as a persistent offender. The fixed penalty clerk may issue a separate notice asking him to pay the surcharge. The power is necessary because where conditional offers are issued, for example in the case of speed cameras, we do not 
 currently have the technology to discover whether or not a person is a persistent offender at the time that the conditional offer is sent off.

David Heath: The hon. Gentleman keeps on using the word ''persistent'' and, indeed, it was used by the Home Secretary. He is asking us to believe that a persistent offender is one who offends twice and might do so within the space of 50 yards.

Paul Goggins: No doubt the hon. Gentleman will give us his definition of ''persistent'' later in the debate. I have given the Government's definition of a persistent offender, which is one who has penalty points on his licence or has been disqualified within the last three years.
 The technology is developing and we hope that the regulations will only be a temporary measure before we can go down the more efficient road of collecting the surcharge at the same time as the fixed penalty. 
 I am sure that the Committee agrees that it is right that, whenever possible, offenders should be made to pay for the consequences of their crimes. A small contribution towards a fund to provide much-needed support for a wide range of victims is a fair and logical step. It will build on and complement existing services, including the criminal injuries compensation scheme and the grant aid that we pay to Victim Support, which is made at the taxpayers' expense, to offer practical and emotional support. 
 I asked for the Committee's forbearance and I am grateful for the careful way in which hon. Members have listened to the complex amendments that we have tabled. I look forward hearing their responses.

Dominic Grieve: I am grateful to the Minister for his peroration. I hope that he will not take it amiss if I say to him that I hope that he understands everything that he has just said, because it has been difficult to follow.
 It is extremely regrettable that such an important series of amendments has been introduced at such a late stage, because it means that the ordinary probing of proposals that takes place by means of the tabling of amendments in Committee becomes impossible and, as a result, sensible debate becomes much harder. I am sure that the Minister accepts that. The truth is that we shall have examine the provision as it appears on the Bill and discuss it again on Report, but I fear that we shall have insufficient time to propose the detailed amendments that I wanted to be tabled in Committee. It is a bad state of affairs.

Cheryl Gillan: Does my hon. Friend agree that, even if we were left with a short, imperfect time for scrutiny in this House, we could improve the scrutiny of these and later provisions if the Government allowed recommittal of the Bill in another place? Surely that is the logical solution to the problem. If the Government are playing fair, that is exactly what they will do in the other place.

Dominic Grieve: I agree entirely. Unless there is recommittal, the other place will be unhappy when the Bill goes back to it and it has to consider such major amendments.
 In an attempt to do justice the proposals, I wish to make several points. As a general principle, is it proper that in addition to any other penalties they receive, criminals should be surcharged in order to supply a victims fund? The Government and we are probably at one on that matter. As a basic idea, it has much to commend it. The general problem with it, which the Government have half acknowledged by backing down slightly in respect of certain road traffic offences, is the widespread public perception—I do not think that it is inaccurate—that when the Government impose surcharges or extra penalties, the targets from whom they are most likely to succeed in drawing income are the generally law abiding, and not the generally criminal. The danger the Government face is that such a process can bring the law into disrepute. 
 I have mentioned my experience of having carried out a citizen's arrest. When the story got out some six weeks later, I was contacted by the press and an article was written about it. The Minister will know how I felt: we spend months trying without success to interest people in policy, but the moment that there is a human interest story of, to my mind, considerable banality, we suddenly find that everyone wants to speak to us. During the next 24 hours, I found myself in radio studios being asked to explain my action and then listening to people who had phoned in. I found it an illuminating experience. 
 What came over the phone was an absolute avalanche of anger that people in the country feel about crime and the system in general. In the context of the citizen's arrest, the anger centred on the belief that the police had only come because I was a Member of Parliament, and that if the people who had phoned in had tried to do anything they would have been arrested. I shall try to encapsulate their attitude towards the police and law enforcement as best I can. They expressed the view that they were sheep, let loose in society, supposedly to be guarded by sheep dogs—the various law enforcement agencies—but the law enforcers were useless at protecting them from the predatory wolves around them, and astonishingly good at biting their heels over every minor regulatory breach that they might commit. We in this country are facing a crisis of public confidence in law enforcement and the police, which is fuelled by such a perception. The perception might be erroneous, but I do not have the slightest doubt that it is real. 
 I do not know about other hon. Members, but a large number of my constituents own cars—the area has one of the highest levels of car ownership in the country—and because of my constituency's location and the fact that it is a wealthy area, many are burgled. The public juxtapose the overzealousness of the police in respect of motor cars with their inadequacy in respect of burglaries. That is a corrosive force, given the way in which society is developing in my constituency and, I suspect, nationwide. The letters of complaint that I receive about what seem to be perfectly reasonable police law-enforcement methods worry me, pointing as they do to a general reduction in the status of the police in the communities that they serve. 
 I have to declare an interest. I am not yet a persistent offender, but I have discovered that, because of the number of speed cameras in my constituency, 27 years of undetected faults in my driving were lost when I received my first fixed penalty notice for exceeding the speed limit. In my defence, I must say that I thought that the speed limit was 40 mph, but it was 30 mph, and I was driving at 38 mph. I am a believer in speed cameras, but it follows that if at any time in the next 18 months, before the offence is taken off my licence, I happen to be snapped by one of the dozens of speed cameras that Thames Valley police have thoughtfully installed around my constituency—their density is greater there than almost anywhere else in the United Kingdom—I will have become a persistent offender.

Robert Walter: A villain.

Dominic Grieve: My hon. Friend says from a sedentary position that I would be a villain. I would certainly have to pay the further surcharge.
 I do not want to make it an article of faith, but the level of resentment that the measure will create will be spectacular. It does not differentiate the person who is being given the regulatory rap over the knuckles and the person whom the public perceive is a criminal. The Minister may be right to say that all of us—including the Solicitor-General, who qualifies in the offender category because of speeding when taking one of her children back to school or university—should accept the sort of society in which we live, but the proposals will cause huge public resentment. 
 The Government have half acknowledged that. Faced with that response, the Home Secretary sensibly gave the impression that he would think about it again. He then came back and gave the impression—I suspect that it is what most of the public think—that the fixed penalty notice will be exempt from the procedure. The public will discover, to their displeasure, that that is not the case.

Meg Munn: I am feeling increasing consternation. I remember the time not that long ago when people thought that having an extra drink or two was not a problem, but public perception changed and drink driving is now considered not to be the done thing. Speed kills. If speed cameras stop people speeding, if they make people think about the speed at which they are driving, I will strongly support them. I do not see why the hon. Gentleman wants to whip up the public view that we should not do this.

Dominic Grieve: The hon. Lady has not been listening to the main thrust of my argument. I do not suggest that reducing drivers' speed and getting them to conform with speed limits is undesirable—indeed, I hope that I made it clear, as I do in letters to my constituents, that many benefits will flow from an overall reduction in people's driving speeds. I do not wish to go off at too much of a tangent, but there are arguments that some of our speed limits are bizarre and that they have become very complicated. As a result, it is often difficult to tell what the speed limit is, so drivers tend to adjust their speed to what they think is reasonable for safety's sake, but then find that it is not the limit
 that they expect. There are roads in my constituency where the speed limit reduces just as it enters a rural area.

Joe Benton: Order. The hon. Gentleman is wandering slightly off the point. He is going off at a tangent. Can I bring him back to amendment No. 95?

Dominic Grieve: I acknowledge that, and all I will say in mitigation is that I was induced to go in that direction by interventions. In fairness, I hope that you will allow me some latitude, Mr. Benton, because we have to look at the sort of offences that the Government are trying to cover.
 The Government made an acknowledgement when the fixed penalty procedure was introduced: they acknowledged that there is a distinction between motoring offences that can be dealt with by a fixed penalty procedure and those that cannot. If somebody is caught on a speed camera driving at 60 mph on a 40 mph stretch of road, he cannot be given a conditional offer. Quite properly, he will be required to attend at the magistrates court, where he will be fined a sum that might be much more than the fixed penalty of £60 and his licence will be endorsed. 
 I am trying as best as I can to help the Government. They would be wise to draw their distinction at the point between being regulatory to achieve an end and where the court expresses anxiety by summoning the person before it. If they do not, the perception already abroad among my constituents that they are facing iniquitous revenue-raising devices will grow. My hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham shares that view because her constituency also has many speed cameras designed to regulate the way we drive. People will juxtapose that revenue-raising device with their perception that when they make complaints seeking the state's protection for their households and families the service that they get is entirely inadequate. The Government must think about that corrosive force.

Tony McWalter: Part of our deep feeling about the proposal relates to the Government's reference to persistent offenders. Even within the category of fixed penalty offences there is a definition of the persistent offender: he is the person who has committed the offence four times and loses his licence. Whether or not people share my hon. Friend's feelings—I do—that is a much better definition than the one involving a person who inadvertently commits an offence twice and is put into a different category.

Dominic Grieve: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. That, too, is an approach that commends itself, and the Minister might seek to adopt it.
 There are a number of ways to impose a surcharge that people perceive to be fair while also allowing the Government to raise their revenue. Fairness must underlie the way in which justice is administered. The heavy hand of the state imposing surcharges in regulatory settings will have a highly negative impact when there is a perception that offenders who commit offences of dishonesty or violence will often not pay the surcharge because it will never be successfully 
 extracted from them, and when there is also a continuing crisis in public confidence about the protection that the state gives. 
 I urge the Minister to consider what I have said and listen to what other Members have to say on the subject—I detect that other Committee members share my anxieties. He should go away and think again so that on Report we see an approach that commands widespread acceptance throughout the House. If the Minister does that, it will go down in history as a rather sensible move. If he does not, he will find that this becomes a subject of considerable contention and irritation that will do no good to the public participation of right-minded people in the general process of crime prevention, to co-operation with the police, and to confidence in the criminal justice system. I sincerely ask the Minister to think again. The Government are making a mistake.

David Heath: Of course, I share the hon. Gentleman's views on the genesis of these proposals. It was difficult to take in all the details, and perhaps we will need to come back with further amendments.
 With regard to the overall scheme being proposed, there is a proper connection to be made between the compensation paid to victims of crime and idea of the perpetrators of the crime providing some, if not all, of it. On Second Reading, I categorised that as a crude form of restorative justice, but it is right that we should be able to make that connection. 
 Are we talking here about a scheme that establishes such a connection? There are a number of problems, and we touched on one of them when we debated a money resolution to enable payments to be made into the consolidated fund. I have a serious worry that sums will be paid into the consolidated fund and disappear into the maw of the Treasury; a sum will then be voted by the Treasury to the Home Office for the purposes of a victim's compensation fund. Thus, there will be no direct connection; indeed, there will be something worse than no direct connection—suspicion. There will be the suspicion, with which we are familiar because it has already been aroused in the public mind and in the minds of those who, for their own reasons, wish to be unsympathetic to the concept of the speed camera system in traffic control, that we are introducing a revenue-raising device rather than a proper system for the prevention and regulation of crime and the recompense of victims. That is a real concern that we need to return to. 
 We come to the question of what are the appropriate offences on which such a surcharge should be levied. I have a simple moral: do not buy a pig in a poke from the Home Secretary. He could not have been clearer on Second Reading when he said that the measure was not going to apply to the vast swathe of motoring offences. The import of what he said was, ''We believe it's right that persistent and serious breakers of traffic law should pay towards this. Doesn't everyone agree? However, that is not what we are going to do because we've listened to views during the consultation process.'' I was fool enough to accept at face value what the Home Secretary told the House, 
 and to congratulate him on having listened to people and on deciding that the people who pay into the compensation fund should be the muggers, not the motorists. Now, we hear the extraordinary definition from the Minister that a persistent offender is someone who is caught on two speed cameras. 
 I understand the difficulties that the hon. Member for Beaconsfield has in making his case; that has nothing to do his personal position on the matter, but is because of the views of some of his hon. and right hon. Friends, who have given the impression—rightly or wrongly—that they do not want speed cameras anywhere because they get in the way of people who want to drive their Jags too fast. I am sorry, but that is the impression that has been given.

Dominic Grieve: The hon. Gentleman is being slightly unfair. No doubt people have differing views, but I reiterate that I have been a consistent supporter of speed cameras in my constituency. I am aware of their beneficial impact.

David Heath: I was being careful to separate the hon. Gentleman's views from what appear to be the views of some of his colleagues. The hon. Gentleman has been consistent on the matter, and I applaud that. My party and I have been absolutely clear; we think that there are huge benefits to speed cameras. We do not believe the propaganda that has been put about, and we have seen the evidence of genuine reductions in accident, casualty and death rates as a result of the judicious imposition of speed cameras. Our argument is not against the speed camera.
 If the Government carry on with the proposals before us, however, they will undo at a stroke their efforts of the past few months to establish a proper case for speed cameras. They will lose the sympathy of all those who have been won over by the strength of the evidence. That would be an extraordinarily stupid thing to. They would undermine their case if they extended the surcharge to those caught by two speed cameras doing a few miles per hour over the speed limit because of inadvertence or forgetfulness. 
 As the hon. Member for Beaconsfield said, people often do not know the speed limit at a particular point. I pass two speed cameras on the Embankment when I drive through the City of London on the way back to my flat in London, and I have yet to discover what the speed limit is there. I have assumed that it is 30 mph, and I am probably right. I always make sure that I am below 30 mph on that entire stretch of road.

Dominic Grieve: There are 20 mph limits.

David Heath: Yes, there are 20 mph limits. I do not believe that there is a sign anywhere on that stretch of road to suggest what the limit is. That situation applies to a lot of motorists; they are genuinely in doubt about the speed limit at the point of a camera. Those of us who use the M3 and A303 out of London know that to our cost, because there are a lot of speed cameras there.
 I have never been caught by a speed camera—touch wood—because I try hard not to break speed limits. Ever since I was chairman of a police authority, I have tried hard to keep within the law, and I have never 
 been convicted of a motoring offence. I am very happy with my personal performance. However, I recognise that many people are caught whom I would consider careless, not dangerous, drivers. Speed cameras are there to remind them to keep within the limits. I am not arguing against the speed camera. However, I do not believe that making such people compensate the victims of violent crime is a necessary corollary or a logical step to take. 
 The hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) suggested that we might already have a definition of a persistent offender: the person who loses their licence because of points. He is absolutely right; that is one definition. We also know that, where someone has seriously exceeded the speed limit, they are taken to a court. Again, I have no quarrel with that, and I certainly have no quarrel with anyone who is convicted of the other motoring offences, such as reckless or dangerous driving. They should fall into this category, because they are indulging in criminal and dangerous behaviour. That is not the problem. However, by taking an over-prescriptive attitude, the Government are making a huge mistake, and the public will simply not be with them. 
 The Minister has a popular proposal here, in general. It is a good idea for people to pay something towards the restoration and compensation of their victims, but the exercise will be devalued if people do not see that connection: if they see the money going directly to the Treasury, see no link between the amounts raised and disbursed, and see the measure concentrating on people who get caught doing 4 or 5 miles over a 30 or 40-mile-an-hour speed limit and become a persistent offender by driving through two speed cameras, rather than one. 
 The Minister did not make it clear—and I cannot find it in the amendments, although it may be there—whether someone who uses a system of work in substitution of the payment of a fine would also do that in payment of surcharge, and whether the same rate would apply. We considered that yesterday, and it seems logical to include it in the same system, but perhaps he could explain how it is linked to the proposals. 
 I am still sceptical about the effectiveness of fixed penalties for criminal and antisocial behaviour. Perhaps the Minister could say how many fixed-penalty tickets have been issued since the legislation received assent and what order of use they have, because I doubt whether that is the most effective way to bear down on antisocial behaviour. It is most important that the Minister thinks again about the abuse of the word ''persistent''—that is simply an abuse, rather than what we mean, or what anyone understands, by persistent behaviour. If he persists with that usage, he will devalue the raft of proposals that he is introducing—and today he has used the word more than twice.

Cheryl Gillan: I need further and better particulars from the Minister on the proposals. Notwithstanding that, I should like to place it on the record that I am grateful to him, and through him I thank his officials, who have tried to do the impossible in bringing me up
 to speed on these late-tabled amendments. They are a credit to the Home Office and to the Minister.
 On a reading of the summary of the responses to the Home Office consultation paper, it seems that despite more than 1,000 people accessing the information on the internet, the Minister received only 106 responses. However, in the executive summary, he makes it clear that a majority of the respondents tended to concentrate on the proposal to add the surcharge on criminal convictions and the fixed penalty notices for disorder and road traffic offences, and many focused exclusively on speeding. 
 Is the Minister willing to publish the 106 responses in full, so we can better understand the response to the consultation? Although he acknowledges that a few respondents misunderstood the proposals, many others concentrated on specific issues that concerned them. I have a sneaking suspicion that most of the 106 responses focused on the matter with which we have been preoccupied today. It would be helpful if, when we return to this matter on Report, the responses could be made available in full to the Committee. That should not be too difficult a job for the Department; it is just a matter of photocopying them and placing them in the Library. It would help us better to understand how the Department arrived at its thinking, because the Minister has pressed ahead, despite all the publicity and the obvious public outrage caused by the proposals around the speed camera element. 
 I should also like to know not only what the Minister understands the term ''persistent offender'' to mean, as Opposition Members have asked, but what he understands a ''serious and persistent offender'' to be. The Government's position is also outlined on page 5 of the response document: 
''The surcharge on motoring Fixed Penalty Notices will only apply to serious and persistent offenders.''
 A persistent offender may have been done twice by a speed camera, but if they had been going only 3 mph above the speed limit, would that be serious? The response document does not say ''serious or persistent offender'', but refers to a ''serious and persistent offender''. I would like to probe the Minister on his understanding of the term ''serious''. 
 It is obvious to me that a serious offender would be somebody going at 110 mph in a 30 mph zone. The offence of a close relation of mine who was caught doing 34 mph in a 30 mph zone at 2 o'clock in the morning was not serious, although I have to say that it was persistent, because he was done twice.

Robert Walter: Does my hon. Friend think that somebody who had paid a fixed penalty notice for speeding on one occasion and who was then stopped by the police for having a defective light would be a serious and persistent offender?

Cheryl Gillan: My hon. Friend makes a good point. I hope that the Minister will be able to respond to that.
 I would like to know how the Minister envisages the scheme starting. For example, if I had six points on my driving licence after having been caught by speed cameras twice—I have not, I hasten to add—would I be exonerated? Would the scheme start when the legislation came into effect or would the clock already be ticking? If I were caught a third time, would I already be much more likely to face the surcharge? 
 I would like clarification on whether any ring-fencing is envisaged for road traffic accident victims. If I heard the Minister correctly, he made that linkage earlier. What discussions he has had, particularly with RoadPeace, which is a first-class organisation? Has he had any responses from RoadPeace on the proposals? 
 The Home Office recently made a move to which Conservative Members were diametrically opposed—the reclassification of cannabis. Under the new Home Office provisions, it is intended that police officers should concentrate on more serious offences involving hard drugs and take their foot off the gas when dealing with people in respect of cannabis. That was recently reconfirmed by the Home Office in the Daily Mail, in an article entitled ''Police demand a U-turn over softer law on cannabis''. 
 Any of my constituents caught twice by one of the hundreds of speed cameras in the Thames valley area will not understand why they face a surcharge while the police are turning a blind eye and going easy on cannabis users and possessors. As the matter stands, the police face a problem. Cannabis users are blowing smoke in policemen's faces and challenging them, and establishing a pattern of behaviour and rules of engagement is a problem for the local policer force. The Minister should be very worried about that. If he wishes to be seen as taking a fair approach, he will have to provide a pretty good explanation to the good citizens of Chesham and Amersham, Beaconsfield and probably of all our constituencies. They will not understand how our police forces can be asked not to pursue what is still a criminal offence in order to allow them to concentrate on other offences, while our poor speeders get done for a surcharge.

Dominic Grieve: My hon. Friend makes a good point. We discussed the use of cautions in the past when we debated the Criminal Justice Bill. They are widely used in circumstances in which individuals admit to carrying out acts of dishonesty or even violence that most right-minded people would consider criminal. I have no objection to that. In certain circumstances, it is the correct course of action. However, those people will not be obliged to pay a surcharge.

Cheryl Gillan: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Minister will have to go a long way to convince us and the wider public of his argument. They have been exercised about such provisions before, and they will be exercised again if he proceeds along the lines set out in the Bill.

Vera Baird: I have not followed what the hon. Lady has been saying. To be honest, I have not followed much of the Opposition have said during the debate. It has been suggested that what is predominantly middle-class car crime should be exempt from the penalty process—on what basis, I am not sure. Is it or is it not
 a good thing for the police to concentrate on hard drugs and not waste the time of drug squad officers on soft drugs? Of course it is. Such a policy must be pursued. Surely she accepts that that is important and understands that it has nothing to do with letting off people who speed. They are dangerous. If people speed twice, they are fools. They will have been told once about it and given an opportunity to learn their lesson. In the context of road safety and my children, people are persistent if they speed twice.

Cheryl Gillan: I do not accept the premise on which the hon. and learned Lady based her intervention. She will correct me if I am wrong, but I am not aware of evidence that people caught by speeding cameras are almost exclusively middle class. That is an extraordinary way to express an argument. I am not diminishing the dangers of speeding, but my constituents will not understand the police soft pedalling and not pursuing the commission of a criminal offence when others could be committing a persistent offence along the lines set out in the Bill. They could be caught twice within the same time frame, within a minute. People will not understand the Government's priorities.

Vera Baird: Should not the hon. Lady concentrate her energies on trying to satisfy her constituents that they are wrong to resist the process? With great respect, it is silly of her to argue that because some criminals are not caught, people who misbehave and are caught should not face an appropriate penalty.

Dominic Grieve: It is not the penalty; it is the surcharge.

Cheryl Gillan: Absolutely. The police walk away from people who are seen to commit a crime in front of them to reduce the time that they spend on paperwork and the bureaucracy of processing the crime, and to spend more time on other crimes. The hon. and learned Lady does not have a point, and I shall pursue my argument.
 Let us consider the magnitude of the sums involved. They range from £5 to £30. As soon as I read about such small sums, I asked myself what the cost of their collection would be. There is no doubt that the moment we start to take a penny or a pound—or £5 billion in the case of pension schemes—out of the taxpayer's pocket, there will be a cost of collection.

Dominic Grieve: That must particularly be the case in respect of fixed penalty notices. The system that is envisaged requires further reconsideration and the sending out of new letters. Given administrative overheads, that will add considerably to the cost.

Cheryl Gillan: Those words were almost taken out of my mouth. It is interesting to note that the tax that costs the least to collect is value added tax. In that instance, in effect, the taxpayer acts as the tax collector for the Government. However, there are enormous costs in collecting capital gains tax, inheritance tax and other taxes. Will the Minister tell us what proportion of the fines will eventually end up in the compensation fund? The cost of collecting a sum as small as £5 could be anything up to £5, if not more. I hope that he will respond to my questions.

Vera Baird: I want briefly to add to what I said in my intervention.
 The hon. Lady obviously does not appreciate that speeding is likely to be a middle-class crime. The hon. Member for Beaconsfield acknowledged that his constituency has one of the highest rates of car ownership in the country. In mine, 60 per cent. of people cannot afford cars and have to use a bus or a bike or walk. It is a fairly straightforward fact that car ownership and affluence go together.

Dominic Grieve: I accept the point that the hon. and learned Lady makes. Of course, it is equally the case that there are huge variations in the distribution of speed cameras around the country, depending on whether the police force concerned has implemented a scheme for them. Doubtless because of the high level of car ownership and great use of roads in their area, Thames Valley police have sensibly concentrated on speed cameras, but the chances of being caught for a speeding offence are almost non-existent in some parts of the country. She may wish to bear that in mind and add it to the equation when considering who is speeding where.
 The truth is—I defy the hon. and learned Lady to deny this—that there is not a single member of this Committee who, after a day's motoring, would be able to say that they had not breached the speed limit at some point during the day.

Vera Baird: The hon. Gentleman completely misses the point. If there is an unequal distribution of speed cameras around the country and a high proportion of them in the Thames valley, that is one thing. I drive every Friday and Sunday on the A66 in Teesside, and I know that there are many speed cameras on it and on major roads. I do not believe that the police distribute cameras according to affluence or keep them away from people in poorer areas. He completely misses making any point at all.
 It is common for middle-class people to say that they should not be surcharged or punished for relatively minor crime as other people get away with worse crimes. I remember very well seeing an example of such an attitude when I was much younger and lived in a small village in County Durham. It was not half as posh as the next village. The people in the posh village used to have a lock-in every night at the local pub. They had a fine time and nobody particularly minded. Sometimes one or two of them rolled home in a peculiar condition late at night. On one of those occasions one of them rolled a little too close to the middle line on the road and caused a road traffic incident, and it was not surprising that the police decided to swoop. They booked a large number of middle-class people for late-night drinking—and quite right, too. The outrage that came from that public house about how the police should have been out catching burglars instead of interfering in the harmless pleasures of ''people like us'' is not something that I would recommend considering when we legislate to deal with criminal activity across the board. 
 The Government are right that people who speed more than once—I make no bones about the fact that I am guilty of having speeded more than once—should 
 learn not to do so. They present a danger on the road, not least to children, and they should pay a surcharge into a fund that will compensate victims of road traffic accidents, which are regularly caused by speed alone and nothing more.

Cheryl Gillan: I cannot imagine what has led the hon. and learned Lady to twist my comments towards some sort of class war. That is not what I intended and I do not believe that the words crossed my lips.
 The point that I was making is that people will not understand why they are caught by cameras when people committing criminal offences under the noses of the police are allowed to escape being charged with their offence on the instructions and intentions of the Home Office. I do not believe that they will understand that situation, irrespective of their income, their position or what the hon. and learned Lady likes to refer to as their class in society.

Vera Baird: I can give the hon. Lady many explanations, but comprehension I cannot give. She should go back to her constituents and tell them that it is fine if they complain that people are being let off crime, but that they should not complain when they are rightly required to pay a surcharge for victims of crime because they have committed a crime.

Paul Goggins: I apologise for the way in which I presented the rather technical information that had to precede our discussion. I always prefer to be conversational and interesting, but, frankly, the amendments are technical and I needed to place the details on the record.

Dominic Grieve: I can assure the Minister that he was as conversational and as interesting as he could possibly have been in the circumstances.

Paul Goggins: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who knows, as do other members of the Committee, that the reason why the amendments were tabled so late is that they flowed from consultation that began in January this year. I am pleased that we were able to publish our response to that consultation to coincide with Second Reading.
 Despite our differences in this afternoon's debate, it is clear that there is a good deal of common ground in relation to the principle that the offender should pay something back to support the victim. It is important to underline the importance of that principle. 
 There has also been an interesting discussion about whether certain types of crime are middle class, working class and so on. I want to make two points to the hon. Member for Beaconsfield about the perception of crime. We must do more to bear down on and deal with serious crime. He and I spent a considerable amount of time last year considering the Criminal Justice Act 2003 and the Sexual Offences Act 2003, both of which deal robustly with offending by increasing penalties when that is appropriate. We have backed that up with record numbers of police officers, community support officers and so on. 
 The person who speeds twice may not commit an offence that is as heinous as some that we had to discuss when considering the Sexual Offices Bill, for example, but none the less, such a driver is an offender and it is entirely proportionate that, having offended twice, they should pay something back to victims—£5 in the case of someone caught on a speed camera. Were the hon. Gentleman to be caught again—I do not think for a moment that he will be caught again in the next 18 months—he might consider, on reflection, that it is entirely proportionate to contribute £5 to those who suffer from road traffic accidents. 
 In my constituency, two parents whose 12-year-old son was mown down by a driver travelling at 50 mph suffered enormous heartbreak. If we have a measure here that helps to reduce people's speed and, even if the worst happens, helps to support those people in the grief that they suffer, that is entirely proportionate and sensible.

Dominic Grieve: I appreciate the Minister's point and to some extent it is a matter of perception. Many people in this country drive and must observe regulations, but inadvertence or misjudgement may lead them to break those regulations. The poorer members of the community, not my wealthy constituents, find that the fixed penalty is a real imposition on their budget. It is of no concern to wealthier people; similarly, the £5 surcharge will be of no financial concern to them, even if it irritates them. I assure the Minister that many of my constituents are not wealthy and are on well below average incomes, but feel just as strongly about this issue. The point is that their perception of the extent of their criminality is clearly very different from the one espoused by the Minister and the hon. and learned Member for Redcar, and I am not sure that their view is necessarily wrong. In a regulated environment we all quite frequently commit regulatory breaches. That is what troubles me about this measure, and I do not think that it commands public support.
 If the Minister goes down this road and implements the proposal, it will almost certainly become an election issue, and if it does, the Government will be the losers. I am trying to do the Government a favour by pointing out the shortcomings to them.

Paul Goggins: Perhaps after my party has won the next general election, I will reflect on the hon. Gentleman's generosity and assistance. To be serious, I think that he was suggesting that if at all possible we should achieve consensus on this matter, as we have tried to on others. This has been our first discussion of the issue in this House and, no doubt, we will discuss it again on Report—if for no other reason than at his behest.

Dominic Grieve: Yes, I hope that we can achieve consensus. If there were absolutely no philosophical merit to the argument that I have been making, the Secretary of State would never have given way from his original position that every person who committed a speeding offence—a fixed penalty offence—would have to pay. He backed down from that because clearly he thought that the argument had some resonance. I assume that he did not back down to achieve a cheap party political advantage at the coming election, so he must have been convinced
 that the argument had merit. I simply ask the Minister to listen to our arguments and not take an absolutist stance. I suspect that we can achieve consensus along the lines that have been so ably set out by a number of hon. Members who have contributed to our debate.

Paul Goggins: The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome said that the Home Secretary seemed to have misled him, but my right hon. Friend made matters very clear on Second Reading. He stated:
''Following the consultation, we accept that it would be wrong for low-level first-time offences to be subject to a surcharge.''—[Official Report, 14 June 2004; Vol. 422, c. 540.]
 He made it abundantly clear that he was moving, but that he was only moving so far and that, in his view, a second offence happening in the circumstances that I described could be described as persistent.

David Heath: I beg to differ. That was not made abundantly clear on Second Reading. I accept that the words ''first offence'' were mentioned, but at no stage was it made clear that the words ''persistent'' and ''serious offender'' referred to someone who was caught for a second time on a fixed penalty ticket or a speeding offence. The Minister may care to reflect that consensus was achieved on Second Reading based on the understanding—which I shared—of what the Home Secretary intended. That is not reflected in the amendments. Consensus is on the table; let us at least strive to achieve it.

Paul Goggins: Both the hon. Members for Somerton and Frome and for Beaconsfield have made it clear that they are keen to pursue common ground. As I said, this is the first time that we have had the opportunity to discuss the amendments in detail, and we shall see where the discussion goes. Our deliberations this afternoon are certainly not the end of the discussion.

Vera Baird: The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham raised an issue that the Minister should consider very seriously. I would put things slightly differently. I am a little worried that if I had received a speeding ticket in 2003, my penalty would have been £50 and three points on my licence, but if I went on to receive one in 2005, I would also get a surcharge, part of which would be attributable to the speeding fine that I received in 2003. So, in 2003, I would actually have received my three penalty points, my speeding fine and half a surcharge, which means that the penalty for my 2003 offence would have been increased retrospectively. My guess is that that is contrary to article 7.

Cheryl Gillan: Gosh, she's good!

Paul Goggins: My hon. and learned Friend is very good. Clearly, we will all want to reflect on the point that she has just made and in due course return to it.
 No doubt, we will continue to discuss what constitutes persistence. We are striving for a proportionate balance. The commission of an offence of the type under discussion is a serious matter: lives can be lost when people speed. What can be described only as a modest contribution to supporting victims of £5 would be made in the case of speeding fines. 
 Several hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome initially, referred to the nature of the fund. Our intention is not to set up a separate fund, as I think he understands, but to use the Consolidated Fund as a mechanism—an administrative arrangement. I can say categorically that every penny raised through the surcharge will be paid out in support of victims. Not all the money will be paid to victims of road traffic incidents; there will be a range of victims. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has made it clear that he wants an initial sum to be spent to support the victims of sexual crime, and I think that we would all endorse such a move. We will have to achieve a balance in respect of which victims' groups can obtain funding, but every penny that goes into the Consolidated Fund from the surcharges will be paid out. I hope that that gives the hon. Gentleman some reassurance. 
 I say to the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham that we have consulted organisations such as RoadPeace. We listen to what they have to say; indeed, all organisations with concerns about the issue were able to contribute to our consultation. 
 The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome asked whether it would be possible to convert the surcharge into work, and the answer is yes. He also asked about people travelling just over the speed limit and the operation of speed cameras in relation to such people. Guidelines on speed from the Association of Chief Police Officers are clear. Speed cameras should be set at 10 per cent. plus 2 mph over the speed limit. For example, in a 30-mph area, the speed camera would be set at 35 mph. I hope that that provides clarification. 
 The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham asked how many fixed penalty notices have been issued so far. Eighty thousand penalty notices have been issued for disorder in the pilot areas for antisocial behaviour. In 2002, 1,505,404 notices were issued for endorsable speeding offences and 142,389 notices for non-speeding offences—a total of 1.7 million fixed penalty notices at the time when the consultation was initiated. The hon. Lady asked whether we would publish the full responses to the consultation. The answer is yes, although I warn hon. Members that many responses were not to the consultation but to the media coverage of the consultation, which will have marked the type of response that we received.

Cheryl Gillan: Will the responses be published tomorrow? Monday? When?

Paul Goggins: I cannot confirm the timing. I know that the hon. Lady is sometimes irritated when I say ''shortly'' to her, but I will attend to the issue and we will make the responses available in the Library as soon as we can.

Cheryl Gillan: Well before Report and Third Reading?

Paul Goggins: I am going out on a limb now, but I think that I can be confident about saying that the responses will definitely be available before Report. I promise the hon. Lady that.
 The hon. Lady also asked for the definition of a serious offender. At the moment, we intend to 
 prescribe a surcharge for all road traffic offences, but the detail will be covered in secondary legislation. The ongoing Department for Transport review of penalty points could take a particular view of seriousness. For example, additional points could be awarded for more serious offences. That might be relevant, but we have no way of knowing what the conclusion of those deliberations will be.

Dominic Grieve: At the moment, does the word ''serious'' add anything to the Government's proposal, or is it just an expression? I found it difficult to see that there was any attempt to differentiate serious and non-serious offences.

Paul Goggins: As I said, we seek to leave the matter open for all offences. Clearly, the Department for Transport review will play into this matter. Once the outcome of that review is known and placed alongside the measures that we are discussing, we will have a much clearer idea of what serious means in that context.

Lady Hermon: Since schedule 7 does not apply to Northern Ireland, will the Minister confirm that one has to be caught on speed cameras in England and Wales for it to apply? If one happens to be caught by a speed camera in Northern Ireland—I have not—that will not count under the provisions that we are discussing.

Paul Goggins: No, it will not, although I am sure that the hon. Lady will be happy to join me in calling on people in Northern Ireland and elsewhere to keep their speed down and not to pose the problem that we are trying to deal with.

Lady Hermon: I repeat my point. I endorse the earlier comments that were made by the hon. and learned Member for Redcar. Given that we are trying to save lives and to reduce speeding, I cannot for the life of me understand why the provision does not extend to Northern Ireland. Why will it be extended to Northern Ireland by an Order in Council instead of our having a full debate in this House?

Paul Goggins: The hon. Lady leads us back to previous debates, to which I do not think I can add anything. The destination is the same but the routes taken may be different. I am sure that those issues are as important to her constituents as they are to mine and that her comments will be noted.
 I might have inadvertently misled the Committee this afternoon. I want to make it clear that the surcharge will apply only to endorsable offences, not to all road traffic offences.

David Heath: The Minister is being very patient, but that he has to be so is his own fault. The measures were introduced so late that we have not had a chance to talk about them. His comment that all the money collected via the proposed mechanism will be disbursed was helpful, and I am grateful to him for that clarification. Perhaps I am being simple, but I do not entirely understand the operation of the fund that we are discussing in contradistinction to the present
 work of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority. I do not understand how the two relate. Will he explain that to me?

Paul Goggins: I shall give a fuller explanation when we reach the appropriate part of the Bill. The criminal injuries compensation scheme, which we are seeking to amend in the Bill, will allow the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority to reclaim money that it has paid out in compensation. It is an entirely different and separate arrangement from the one that we are discussing in relation to the clause.

David Heath: Am I right in thinking that moneys that are presently available to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority are not additional to the funds that will be collected by the mechanism and that the new fund will provide no additionality?

Paul Goggins: The new fund is entirely additional. The criminal injuries compensation scheme exists and will continue to do so. As I explained when we debated the matter a week ago, it too is administered through the Consolidated Fund, but it is an entirely separate matter.
 Finally, I want to make two final points. The first is about administration and collection costs, which were raised by the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham. As the surcharge will be administered alongside fines and fixed penalty notices, much of the administrative cost will be absorbed. We estimate that the additional cost will be something in the region of £1.6 million. When that sum is considered relative to the amount that will be raised, it makes sense to spend it.

Cheryl Gillan: Does that include the costs that will be attracted by those offenders who will be allowed to work instead of paying the surcharge? Surely, the costs attached to that are astronomical and far outweigh any of the sums envisaged in the legislation. That is nonsense.

Paul Goggins: I shall have to get back to the hon. Lady on the details. We do not know how many people will wish to convert their surcharge into work; we can only speculate. However, it has been estimated that the administrative costs of collecting the surcharge will be £1.6 million. Given the additional funding that that will provide for victims and organisations working on their behalf, that is extremely good value for money.

Cheryl Gillan: The Minister has just alarmed me by talking about how many people will want to convert their surcharge into work. Will he clarify the terms and conditions for replacing a surcharge with work? As I can see that inspiration is not reaching him in a timely fashion, and because the hour is late, I am willing for the Minister to write to me to answer that question. It is not a trick question. I am genuinely interested because the costs seem to outweigh those of the surcharge.

Paul Goggins: It is not a straightforward option that is presented to people. When people are being pursued for non-payment of fines and the surcharge, consideration may be given to converting the financial penalty into work. I take the hon. Lady's
 suggestion on board and I shall write to her setting out the details.
 Finally, I shall deal with an important point raised by the hon. Member for North Dorset about defective lights. We do not intend to prescribe a surcharge for that offence. 
 Amendment agreed to. 
 Amendments made: No. 96, in schedule 7, page 38, line 32, at end insert— 
'Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 (c.43) 
 In section 108 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 (right of appeal to Crown Court), after subsection (3) insert— 
 ''(4) Subsection (3)(d) above does not prevent an appeal against a surcharge imposed under section 161A of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.'' 
 In section 139 of that Act (disposal of sums adjudged to be paid by conviction)— 
 (a) after paragraph (a) insert— 
 ''(aa) in the second place in payment to the fund mentioned in paragraph (c) below of surcharges imposed under section 161A of the Criminal Justice Act 2003;''; 
 (b) in paragraph (b), for ''second'' substitute ''third''.'.
 No. 62, in schedule 7, page 38, leave out line 34 and insert— 
'In section 13A of the Criminal Appeal (Northern Ireland) Act 1980 (appeal against finding of unfitness to be tried), in subsection (1), for ''the jury has returned'' substitute ''there has been''. 
 In section 19(1A)(a) of that Act'.
 No. 63, in schedule 7, page 39, line 4, at end insert— 
'In section 81 of that Act (power of Crown Court to grant bail), in subsection (1A), for ''or 15'' substitute '', 15 or 16A''.'.
 No. 107, in schedule 7, page 39, line 11, at end insert— 
'Representation of the People Act 1983 (c.2) 
 10A In section 3A of the Representation of the People Act 1983 (disenfranchisement of offenders detained in mental hospitals), for subsection (5) substitute— 
 ''(5) As respects any part of the United Kingdom, this section applies to any person in respect of whom a hospital order has been made by virtue of— 
 (a) section 116A of the Army Act 1955 or the Air Force Act 1955 or section 63A of the Naval Discipline Act 1957, or 
 (b) section 16 or 23 of the Courts-Martial (Appeals) Act 1968.'' '.
 No. 108, in schedule 7, page 39, line 12, at end insert— 
'In section 47 of the Mental Health Act 1983 (removal to hospital of persons serving sentences of imprisonment, etc), in subsection (5)(a), for the words ''under any enactment to which section 46 applies'' substitute ''made in consequence of a finding of insanity or unfitness to stand trial''.'.
 No. 109, in schedule 7, page 39, line 19, leave out 
'omit paragraph (b) of subsection (1)' 
 and insert 'in subsection (1)— 
 (a) for paragraph (a) substitute— 
 ''(a) is treated by virtue of any enactment as subject to a hospital order and a restriction order; or''; 
 (b) omit paragraph (b)'.
 No. 110, in schedule 7, page 39, line 20, at end insert— 
'In section 84 of that Act (removal to England and Wales of offenders found insane in Channel Islands and Isle of Man), in subsection (2), for the words from ''had been'' to the end substitute 
''were subject to a hospital order together with a restriction order, made without limitation of time''. 
 (1) Schedule 5 to that Act (transitional and saving provisions) is amended as follows. 
 (2) For paragraph 21 substitute— 
 ''21. Any direction to which section 71(4) of the Mental Health Act 1959 applied immediately before the commencement of this Act shall have the same effect as a hospital order together with a restriction order, made without limitation of time.'' 
 (3) In paragraph 37(2), for ''direction under section 46 of this Act'' substitute ''hospital order together with a restriction order, made without limitation of time''.'.
 No. 97, in schedule 7, page 40, line 27, at end insert— 
'Criminal Justice Act 1991 (c.53) 
 In section 24 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 (recovery of fines etc by deductions from income support), after subsection (3) insert— 
 ''(3A) This section applies in relation to a surcharge imposed under section 161A of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 as if any reference in subsection (1) or (3) above to a fine included a reference to a surcharge.''.'.
 No. 64, in schedule 7, page 40, line 32, at end insert— 
'In section 10 of that Act (which makes equivalent provision for Northern Ireland), in subsection (7), for the words ''a jury in Northern Ireland has returned'' substitute ''in Northern Ireland there has been''.'.—[Paul Goggins]

Paul Goggins: I beg to move amendment No. 65, in schedule 7, page 41, line 33, at end insert—
'( ) In subsection (4), for ''it were an order of the court'' substitute ''the court had made an occupation order or a non-molestation order in terms corresponding to those of the undertaking''.'.

Joe Benton: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 16, in schedule 7, page 42, line 16, at end insert—
'(4) In paragraph (b) of the definition of ''relative'' in section 63(1) of Part 4 of the Family Law Act 1996, insert ''cousins''.'.

Paul Goggins: I rise to speak in favour of amendment No. 65 and in opposition to amendment No. 16. Amendment No. 65 is designed to deal with concern that the provisions of the Family Law Act 1996 on undertakings are unclear as to the courts' powers to issue an arrest warrant if the undertaking is breached.
 Under section 46 of the Family Law Act, a court may accept an undertaking from the parties to the proceedings instead of making a non-molestation or occupation order. No power of arrest may be attached to an undertaking. There is concern that the 1996 Act is unclear about whether the court has the power to issue an arrest warrant following breach of undertaking because although an undertaking is enforceable as if it were an order of the court, the court has not made a relevant order for the purposes of section 47(8) of the Act, which deals with arrest for breaches. In practice, there is concern that some courts are not issuing warrants in some cases because they believe that the legislation is unclear. Amendment No. 65 would mean that undertakings will become enforceable as if the court had made an occupation or non-molestation order in terms corresponding to those of an undertaking. Therefore, it will be clear that an arrest warrant can be issued. 
 Amendment No. 16 would add cousins to the list of associated persons in section 63(1) of the Family Law Act 1996 so that they may be eligible for the protection of non-molestation and occupation orders. There are a couple of puzzling issues around that. First, it appears that the amendment is to the wrong part of schedule 7. More important, the Government have already amended the Bill in the House of Lords to bring cousins within the scope of the 1996 Act.

David Heath: May I tell the Minister how grateful we are that the Government accepted the Liberal Democrat amendment in another place that inserted the word ''cousin''? I do not know why we need another amendment to do the same thing.

Paul Goggins: I am grateful for that intervention, which is another example of consensus.

Dominic Grieve: I agree with the Minister and the hon. Gentleman, so the Minister need not trouble himself about the amendment.

Paul Goggins: Given those comments, I have probably said enough.
 Amendment agreed to. 
 Amendments made: No. 111, in schedule 7, page 42, line 31, at end insert— 
'32A (1) Section 47 of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 (power to specify hospital units) is amended as follows. 
 (2) Omit subsections (1)(d) and (2)(c). 
 (3) For subsection (4) substitute— 
 ''(4) A reference in this section to section 37 or 41 of the 1983 Act includes a reference to that section as it applies by virtue of— 
 (a) section 5 of the Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964, 
 (b) section 6 or 14 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968, 
 (c) section 116A of the Army Act 1955 or the Air Force Act 1955 or section 63A of the Naval Discipline Act 1957, or 
 (d) section 16 or 23 of the Courts-Martial (Appeals) Act 1968.''.'.
 No. 98, in schedule 7, page 43, line 6, at end insert— 
'Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 (c.6) 
 In section 132 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 (compensation orders: appeals etc), after subsection (4) insert— 
 ''(4A) Where an order is made in respect of a person under subsection (3) or (4) above, the Court of Appeal or House of Lords shall make such order for the payment of a surcharge under section 161A of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, or such variation of the order of the Crown Court under that section, as is necessary to secure that the person's liability under that section is the same as it would be if he were being dealt with by the Crown Court.'' 
 In section 136 of that Act (power to order statement as to financial circumstances of parent or guardian), in subsection (1), for ''or compensation'' substitute '',compensation or surcharge''. 
 (1) section 137 of that Act (power to order parent or guardian to pay fine, costs or compensation) is amended as follows. 
 (2) In the heading, for ''or compensation'' substitute '', compensation or surcharge''. 
 (3) After subsection (1) insert— 
 ''(1A) Where but for this subsection a court would order a child or young person to pay a surcharge under section 161A of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, the court shall order that the surcharge be paid by the parent or guardian of the child or young person instead of by the child or young person himself, unless the court is satisfied— 
 (a) that the parent or guardian cannot be found; or 
 (b) that it would be unreasonable to make an order for payment, having regard to the circumstances of the case.'' 
 (4) In subsection (3), for ''subsections (1) and (2)'' substitute ''subsections (1) to (2)''. 
 (1) Section 138 of that Act (fixing of fine or compensation to be paid by parent or guardian) is amended as follows. 
 (2) In the heading, for ''or compensation'' substitute '', compensation or surcharge''. 
 (3) Before paragraph (a) of subsection (1) insert— 
 ''(za) subsection (3) of section 161A of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (surcharges) and subsection (4A) of section 164 of that Act (fixing of fines) shall have effect as if any reference in those subsections to the offender's means were a reference to those of the parent or guardian;''. 
 In section 142(1) of that Act (power of Crown Court to order search of persons before it)— 
 (a) before paragraph (a) insert— 
 ''(za) the Crown Court orders a person to pay a surcharge under section 161A of the Criminal Justice Act 2003,''; 
 (b) in paragraph (d), for ''or compensation'' substitute '',compensation or surcharge''.'. 
 —[Paul Goggins.]

David Heath: I beg to move amendment No. 123, in schedule 7, page 43, line 6, at end insert—
'Access to Justice Act 1999 
 After section 13(1)(b) of the Access to Justice Act 1999 insert— 
 ''(c) for victims of domestic violence''.'.

Joe Benton: With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 39—Access to legal assistance—
'(1) The Secretary of State shall by order provide for victims' access to a solicitor under the Duty Solicitor Arrangements 2001 and the Legal Advice and Assistance at Police Stations Arrangements 2001 for the purposes of applying for an emergency injunction. 
 (2) For the purposes of this section ''victim'' has the meaning given in section 25 of this Act.'.

David Heath: New clause 39 is the operative part of this group. It deals with an issue raised by Citizens Advice, which is extremely concerned that there is a distinct problem with the community legal service and civil legal aid services offered through it.
 Citizens Advice makes the point that provision is currently patchy. There are advice deserts, sometimes in the most unlikely places, where people cannot get hold of appropriate advice when necessary. Citizens Advice make the specific point that when someone needs to apply to the civil courts for an injunction to restrain domestic violence, it can sometimes be difficult to find the legal assistance to make the application. It proposes not a perfect, but an adequate response to enable that to happen. 
 I do not intend to make a very long speech, but it will be helpful to refer to three brief case histories that Citizens Advice has given to me, as they illustrate the problem. A west midlands citizens advice bureau helped a male client whose ex-wife's new partner was in breach of a court order concerning access to the client's children. The man was concerned about the threat of violence to his children and needed a solicitor's advice, but the CAB in question was unable to find a community legal service solicitor within a 15-mile radius. That is a serious distance in 
 the context of the west midlands, although it would be less unusual in a more rural area. 
 Looking at another part of the county, a CAB in the east of England provided help to a client who was living with a violent husband with alcohol problems. She was increasingly concerned about the impact of her husband's violence on her three children and sought an occupation order to exclude him from the home. However, there was not a single community legal service-funded practice in the county, and she had to travel out of county to get the help that she needed and find safe child care for her children while she did so. 
 Lastly, a CAB in a major town in Surrey tried to find a community legal service solicitor for a female client who had been punched in the face by her ex-partner's latest girlfriend at his encouragement, leaving her frightened and living in fear of her ex-partner's return. Despite the involvement of the police and a previous history of domestic violence in the relationship, the CAB was unable to help the women to secure an injunction because it could not find a community legal service-funded solicitor to take on the case. 
 I have brought those three case histories to the Committee's attention because they illustrate the problem clearly. We have now fewer community legal service-aided solicitors, particularly in family court practice. Increasingly, there are gaps in parts of the country, meaning that it is difficult to find an appropriate solicitor. If a person found himself in an emergency—I stress an emergency, because we are dealing with solicitors who may not necessarily be well versed in this area of law—he could access the police station-based duty solicitors to provide help with securing an injunction. That emergency service would provide breathing space, and safety at least, until a proper job could be done in conjunction and consultation with a family law solicitor who was available through civil legal advice. It seems that not to provide anything, and to rely on the assistance of the CAB—they do a marvellous job in this area but do not have available legally trained personnel capable of doing this job—would be an adequate, if not a perfect, response to a very inadequate situation.

Dominic Grieve: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point, and I shall listen with interest to the Minister's response. However, I have a slight anxiety that, as the law has become increasingly specialised, the duty solicitor at a police station may not be able to provide the necessary advice on the points that the hon. Gentleman raises. I have a feeling that that may not be the case.

David Heath: I readily accept that point, but they will have sufficient innate skills from their training to be able at least to steer the client through the injunction process. Although it is a far from perfect solution, it is better than a woman subjected to domestic violence having to go outside her county in order to find anybody to help her to secure an injunction. That is the limit of the point. There are two processes here: criminal legal aid and civil legal aid. I am not trying to
 confuse the two disciplines, nor to insist that all solicitors are omnicompetent. I am simply saying that, as an emergency measure, this is sufficient, and the Government might like carefully to consider it. Citizens Advice has a good point in advancing this argument.

Paul Goggins: Although I shall ask the Committee not to support the amendment and the hon. Gentleman to withdraw it, it is useful that he has been able to bring forward more evidence of the work of the citizens advice bureaux to inform our deliberations. Citizens Advice is another organisation that does tremendous work in many of our constituencies
 Domestic violence proceedings are a high priority for community legal services, and that is reflected in the Legal Services Commission's family funding codes, which allows domestic violence cases to be funded more widely than most other family and non-family areas. The Government are deeply sympathetic to the intention behind the amendment, but the criminal defence service is not the appropriate means of providing it. We have already recognised that domestic violence victims need financial support to help them to take out civil orders, which is why we are spending significant sums on civil legal aid. 
 The community legal service expenditure on domestic violence is increasing: in 2001–02, gross expenditure was £44.3 million; in 2002–03, it was £51.6 million; and in 2003–04, it was £56.2 million. In 2003, figures indicate that of 26,500 legal aid applications for domestic violence, just over 1,000 were turned down on financial grounds, and 70 per cent. of those that were accepted were granted full funding. I agree that victims need all the support possible, but I cannot agree to the amendment. 
 The Government are keen to preserve the true principles behind legal aid: principally, that those accused of a criminal offence, or facing criminal proceedings before the courts, have access to the legal help that that they need. Supporting victims of domestic violence is clearly outside that remit. We are currently undertaking a fundamental review of legal aid to ensure that it is most effectively targeted at the right people, and addresses concerns about value for money. The review is about the longer term and about addressing people's needs, and domestic violence is clearly part of that. 
 Although we accept that victims of domestic violence need access to legal help to apply for an emergency injunction, we do not believe that criminal defence service-funded solicitors are best placed to provide that help. The comment made by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield may well also be true, and increased specialisation may pose additional problems. We believe that support is best provided by quality mark solicitors who have a general civil contract with the Legal Services Commission. That funding is already in place, and, as I say, the funding for civil matters is increasing. 
 I hope that that reassures the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome that we take the matter 
 seriously. However, it is just not appropriate to try to deal with it in the way in which he seeks to.

Dominic Grieve: I am not surprised at the Minister's response. I think that there is considerable force in what he says about the mingling of civil and criminal advice by the duty solicitor not being practical.
 The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome is highlighting the crisis in civil legal aid provision around the country. I do not want to take up too much of the Committee's time—you would stop me anyway, Mr. Benton—but the reality is that in an effort to obtain quality, a number of things have happened. First, the high street solicitor providing a universal service has disappeared. In rural areas such as the hon. Gentleman's constituency, that has resulted in the disappearance of individuals who are able or willing at all to provide the service under the legal aid scheme. As a result, people do not know where to turn for help. 
 Other problems include general funding, as well as the willingness of solicitors to apply for the necessary quality mark to do the work. It is one area of publicly funded work where the returns are so small in relation to the overheads that people tend to remove themselves altogether—there is massive evidence of that in family law. That is outside the Minister's remit, but it is a serious issue and one that I am not sure that I have easy answers to. That is why the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome is finding such cases, particularly because of the sort of area that he represents. I find such cases in my constituency, but not at the same level because there is still sufficient provision in a much more densely populated area. It is a major problem, and things are getting worse rather than better.

David Heath: I am grateful for the Minister's response, but I do not think that he has really addressed the issue, or recognised it. Despite the figures that he quoted, which were the overall figures for civil legal aid, a lot of people do not have access to a civil legal aid-funded lawyer in their immediate area. The problem is partly in rural areas, where it is simply not cost effective for small practices to provide such a service. It is also alarmingly the case in many affluent areas, where it is assumed that people will have private funds in order to pursue civil legal action and there is no incentive for solicitors' practices to provide a legal aid component.
 It is becoming increasingly obvious that there are some genuine advice deserts. The worst thing in the world is to be in need of legal advice and to be a poor person in a rich area, because such a person is unlikely to get the aid that they need. The major town often cited as a classic example of an advice desert is Guildford, although I have no idea whether that is true. Guildford is a substantially affluent town, which has significant areas of deprivation. Nevertheless, it does not have the infrastructure to provide support. The assumption is that the global figures tell a story that is okay for the individual who finds himself in need; that assumption is wrong. I ask the Minister to 
 consult with his colleagues in other Departments, because it is a genuine issue. 
 Is the amendment an adequate response? It is a workable response. I accept that a criminal defence lawyer is not the best person to go to, but they can provide the skills to enter into the injunctive process. It seems unusually perverse for the Minister to assume a very high wall between the two disciplines when, in the same Bill, there is a proposal, whereby the restraining order following conviction or acquittal will be dealt with by criminal prosecution lawyers, which is effectively an injunctive process. Under the Bill, criminal prosecution lawyers—not family, civil or legal aid lawyers—will seek the restraining order following a conviction or acquittal. 
 I am sorry, but the Minister cannot have it both ways. If it is an appropriate process to provide the injunction in a criminal court, it is the appropriate action to take in an emergency, when someone is desperate for an injunction to protect themselves or their family and there is nowhere to go within the same county to obtain the legal advice that is needed. 
 I hope that the Minister will reconsider the matter and talk through its implications with the Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Leslie). If my amendment is not the solution, and I have accepted all the way through that it may not be, we need an alternative—a duty civil legal aid lawyer available in areas where no practices provide that service. 
 We must map out throughout the country where such lawyers are available and where they are not. Where they are not, there must be an alternative. It is simply not good enough to say, ''Tough. You happen to live in an area where, because you are poor and there is no solicitor's practice available for that work, you cannot be protected by the law in the way that you should.'' 
 I feel strongly about the matter. There is a huge gap in the legislation, and although I am prepared to withdraw the amendment, I hope that the argument has been made. I do not know whether I have made it effectively; if I have not, I hope that others outside will. We cannot allow people not to have access to the law because they are too poor to access it and happen to live in the wrong place. It flies in the face of every tradition of our legal system and every tradition of the Labour party, my own party and the other parties represented in the Committee. 
 Although I am prepared to withdraw my amendment, I am not prepared to have its context dismissed as irrelevant. It is not; it is desperately serious. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Amendments made: No. 75, in schedule 7, page 43, line 7, at end insert— 
'35A The Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 (c.43) is amended as follows. 
 35B Section 69 (duties in connection with victims of certain offences) (which is superseded by section [Victims of persons sentenced to imprisonment or detention]) is repealed.'.
 No. 76, in schedule 7, page 43, line 8, leave out from '4' to '(offences'. 
 No. 112, in schedule 7, page 43, leave out lines 16 to 22 and insert— 
'37 (1) Section 133 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (general interpretation of Part 2) is amended as follows. 
 (2) In subsection (1)— 
 (a) in the definition of ''admitted to a hospital'', for paragraph (c) substitute— 
 ''(c) section 46 of the Mental Health Act 1983, section 69 of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984 or Article 52 of the Mental Health (Northern Ireland) Order 1986;''; 
 (b) in the definition of ''detained in a hospital'', for paragraph (c) substitute— 
 ''(c) section 46 of the Mental Health Act 1983, section 69 of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984 or Article 52 of the Mental Health (Northern Ireland) Order 1986;''; 
 (c) in the definition of ''restriction order'', for paragraph (c) substitute— 
 ''(c) a direction under section 46 of the Mental Health Act 1983, section 69 of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984 or Article 52 of the Mental Health (Northern Ireland) Order 1986;''. 
 (3) After that subsection insert— 
 ''(1A) A reference to a provision specified in paragraph (a) of the definition of ''admitted to a hospital'', ''detained in a hospital'' or ''restriction order'' includes a reference to the provision as it applies by virtue of— 
 (a) section 5 of the Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964, 
 (b) section 6 or 14 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968, 
 (c) section 116A of the Army Act 1955 or the Air Force Act 1955 or section 63A of the Naval Discipline Act 1957, or 
 (d) section 16 or 23 of the Courts-Martial (Appeals) Act 1968.'' 
 In section 135 of that Act (interpretation: mentally disordered offenders), omit subsection (4)(c).'.—[Paul Goggins.]

Paul Goggins: I beg to move amendment No. 66, in schedule 7, page 43, line 32, at end insert—
'( ) In paragraph 172, for ''63'' substitute ''63A''.'.
 The amendment is a consequential amendment following clause 6. It provides for a familial homicide offence to be tried by a court martial. The amendment makes it a relevant offence for the purposes of a sexual offences prevention order as provided for in the Sexual Offences Act 2003. 
 Amendment agreed to. 
 Amendments made: No. 67, in schedule 7, page 43, line 38, at end insert— 
'39A In section 50 of that Act (application of Part 7 to Northern Ireland), in subsection (13), for paragraphs (a) to (c) substitute— 
 ''(a) for ''section 4A of the Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964'' substitute ''Article 49A of the Mental Health (Northern Ireland) Order 1986'', and 
 (b) for ''that section'' substitute ''that Article''.'' '.
 No. 99, in schedule 7, page 44, line 2, at end insert— 
'In section 151 of that Act (community order for persistent offender previously fined), in subsection (5), after ''compensation order'' insert ''or a surcharge under section 161A''. 
 In section 305 of that Act (interpretation of Part 12), in subsection (1), insert at the appropriate place— 
 '' ''compensation order'' has the meaning given by section 130(1) of the Sentencing Act;''.'.—[Paul Goggins.]
 Further consideration adjourned.—[Mr. Heppell.] 
 Adjourned accordingly at fourteen minutes past Five o'clock till Tuesday 6 July at ten minutes past Nine o'clock.